I think these kinda decks are too flexible and can be too broad of a range to really pin it down as a ‘type’ that needs a term. Most decks that are combining elements from two or more deck types don’t need a name to denote that.

I always just say “Its a Glacier deck that can play fast”

because that is different than “Its a fast deck that can build strong servers”

The statements show the stronger focus.

We don’t need to shorthand everything imo.

‘A faster Glacier deck’ or ‘A more stable/solid Rush deck’ do the job just fine.

I think these kinda decks are too flexible and can be too broad of a range to really pin it down as a ‘type’ that needs a term. Most decks that are combining elements from two or more deck types don’t need a name to denote that.

I think it’s useful to classify decks based on what their primary gameplan is: Are you trying to rapidly score points before the runner can assemble appropriate breakers (“rush”)? Are you trying to create scoring windows based on a temporary economic advantage generated by big ice or Ash (possibly “tempo”)? Are you trying to create an impenetrable server through the combination of Caprice, Ash, Nisei Mk. II, ELP, massively expensive ice, etc (“glacier”)? I personally feel like deckbuilding and card evaluation is easier when we’re precise about how we want and expect games to play out, even if we’re just making arbitrary distinctions on what is a smooth continuum of deck choices and strategies.